MRS. SANJANA M. WIG versus HINDUSTAN PETRO CORPORATION LTD.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 15-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MRS. SANJANA M. WIG 
v. 
HINDUSTAN PETRO CORPORATION LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Alternate remedy-
C Availability of-Scope and ambit of judicial review vis-a-vis availability of 
alternative remedy-Petitioner entered into a dealership agreement with 
Company-Said agreement terminated due to defaults made in payment by 
petitioner-High Court dismissed writ petition in limine on the ground of 
existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement-Correctness of-Held: 
D Exercising of discretionary jurisdiction would not be refused solely on the 
existence of an alternative remedy which is more efficacious-If the forum 
chosen by the party is not in a position to grant appropriate relief a writ 
petition may be entertained-A writ petition may also be entertained if it 
involves a public law character-In the instant case, since the petitioner made 
defaults in payment and the dealership agreement stood terminated, no 
E interference is called/or-Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 14. 
The appellant-firm and the respondent entered into a dealership 
agreement. The agreement was terminated on the death of one of the 
partners of the firm. However, the dealership was allowed to continue 
F having regard to a representation made by the appellant. Ultimately, the 
agreement was terminated on the ground of defaults made by the 
appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition in /imine 
on the ground that there existed an arbitration clause in the agreement. 
Hence the appeal. 
G 
H 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the arbitrator had 
no jurisdiction to pass an award in relation to restoration of possession 
to the appellant by the respondent and, therefore, the High Court ought 
to have entertained the writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
190 
SANJANA M. WIG v. HINDUSTAN PETRO CORPORA T!ON LTD. 
191 
HELD: I. The principal question which arises for consideration is A 
as to whether a discretionary jurisdiction would be refused to be exercised 
solely on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy which is more 
efficacious. Ordinarily, when a dispute between the parties requires 
adjudication of disputed question of facts wherefor the parties are required 
to lead evidence both oral and documentary which can be determined by B 
a domestic forum chosen by the parties, the Court may not entertain a 
writ application. (196-C-D-E) 
State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) AIR SCC 3727, 
followed. 
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (2003] 2 SCC 107, C 
State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, (1958) SCR 595, A. V. Venkateswaran v. 
Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, (1962) 1 SCR 753, State of U.P. v. Bridge & 
Roof Company (India) Ltd., (1996) 6 SCC 22, Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit 
Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399, Asgar S. Patel v. Union of India, (2000) 5 
SCC 311, Mis. Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board, D 
[10751 2 SCC 436, Mis. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. v. Orissa StateE/ectricity 
Board, Affi (1976) SC 127, AB/ International Ltd v. Export Credit Guarantee 
Corporation of India Ltd, JT (2003) 1 SC 300 and Whirlpool Corporation 
v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, relied on. 
2. However, access to justice by way of public law remedy would not E 
be denied when a tis involves public law character and when the forum 
chosen by the parties would not be in a position to grant appropriate relief. 
[196-E-F) 
3. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the question 
as to when such a discretionary jurisdiction is to be exercised or refused p 
to be exercised by the High Court has to be determined .having regard to 
the facts and circumstances of each case wherefor, no hard and fast rule 
can be laid down. [197-E-FI 
Mis. Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd v. Orissa State Electricity Board, [10751 
2 SCC 436 and Mis. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd v. Orissa State Electricity G 
Board, AIR (1976) SC 127, referred to. 
4.1. It may be true that in a given case when an action of the party 
is de hors the terms and conditions contained in an agreement as also 
beyond the scope and ambit of the domestic forum therefor, the writ 
petition may be held to be maintainable; but indisputably therefor such a H 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A case has to be made out. (198-C-D-E-F) 
E. Venkatakrishna v. Indian Oil Corporation, (2000) 7 S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.